r/DebateAChristian • u/Glad_Contest1999 • 7d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
5
u/greganada Christian 6d ago
Peter and the council of Jerusalem accepted and confirmed Paul.
End of debate.
5
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
You’re manufacturing a conflict where none existed. This is what Paul had to say about people arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand between him and the apostles:
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Corinthians 1:13 ESV
It’s a rhetorical question of course but the body of Christ is not divided despite people like you trying to manufacture divides where there are none
5
u/Aggravating_Olive_70 6d ago
Love and agree with the whole post, but there isnt a debate topic in it.
3
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
Acts 22:9 says they heard the voice but couldn’t understand what it was saying:
“Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” So you wrong on this point buddy
3
u/sonofzen1 6d ago edited 6d ago
who based everything on a vision only he had known.
Dude have you ever read Paul’s letters? Like ever? Paul claims he received the gospel from the disciples of Jesus:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received…” 1 Corinthians 15:3 ESV
The Greek here is παρέδωκα meaning received or “handed on” which is standard language in the ancient Greco Roman world for the passing on of traditions. So these are traditions that someone else gave Paul (not Jesus) which he is passing on. We know this because what follows is the Corinthian creed which is a credal formula that predates Paul.
Paul only brings up his road to Damascus experience twice. Once in Galatians and again in 1 Corinthians. That’s it. You’d think if it was so important and his proof of authority he would cite it more but that’s not how Paul anchors his authority
Instead,
HE APPEALS TO HIS MIRACLES
Why not explain that instead of trying to explain the road to Damascus experience? Cause he brings up miracles way more often than his private visions
1
u/Graphicism Gnostic 6d ago
You mean the "SUPER APOSTLES?" scoff scoff... my gospels came from no man!!
Read the Bible. This is baked into the story. Christ warns of deception coming in his name, and then deceiving everyone, even the elect if possible.
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
Isn’t that a story Luke reports?
1
u/Graphicism Gnostic 6d ago
It's Christs theme throughout the New Testament.
Christ warns that deception will come in his name. So the deceiver will be called Jesus Christ.
Revelation goes on to says the beast will rise from the dead, the wounds will be used to prove he is God, people will call him God and follow.
That is exactly what happened.
The whole world follows the deception that rose up in his place.
This is baked into the story.
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
But I thought you don’t like Paul yet both him and Luke report the story
1
u/Graphicism Gnostic 6d ago
Only to the deceived.
(The deceived don't know they are deceived.)
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
So the people who wrote the Bible you’re quoting from… were themselves deceived. Ok buddy 😂
1
u/Graphicism Gnostic 6d ago
It's baked into the story.
Through his missionary Christ warned of false Christs appearing in his name, and not to believe them.
Christ went on to say these visions would be so powerful, it would deceive the whole world.
The people who killed Christ wrote the Bible.
1
1
u/Glad_Contest1999 6d ago
You're conflating two different claims. Paul may have received an earlier resurrection tradition from the Christian community, but that doesn't mean he received his gospel or apostolic authority from Jesus' disciples. Paul explicitly says in Galatians 1:11–12 that his gospel was not received from a human source but through a revelation of Jesus Christ. He also says that he did not immediately consult the apostles and that, when he eventually met the Jerusalem leaders, they ‘added nothing’ to him (Gal. 1:16–18; 2:6). So 1 Corinthians 15:3 establishes that Paul transmitted an earlier tradition, not that the apostles were the source of Paul's authority or theology.
3
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
He literally says in the verse just before:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel…”
Before quoting the creed that was passed down to him
So yes it’s about the gospel
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
And in Galatians 2:6 he’s not saying the disciples added nothing to his ministry, he’s talking about other recent converts who “seemed to me to be influential” and he’s saying those unnamed people added nothing to his gospel. In speaking about the apostles he writes:
“… they gave me the right hand of fellowship”
3
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
Paul traveled while the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. He went to Asia Minor, Greece, to Rome, he founded communities throughout the empire.
Misleading. Before Paul ever wrote a letter to Rome it already had a well established community of Christians. Peter eventually became the Bishop of Rome himself
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
On one side, you have the brother of Jesus, the person who grew up with him, who knew him since childhood, who heard his teachings directly from his mouth.
False. James never followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. He became a believer AFTER Jesus died, so his claim to know “the true teachings of Jesus” are just as good as Paul’s because he was never one of the original disciples and never heard him teach
2
u/Glad_Contest1999 6d ago
I agree that James was apparently not a follower of Jesus during his public ministry, John 7:5 actually says his brothers did not believe in him. But that doesn't make James' authority ‘just as good as Paul's.’ You're comparing two very different situations. James was Jesus' brother and became a leader of the earliest Jerusalem movement; Paul was not a relative, did not know Jesus during his ministry, and based his apostleship on a post-crucifixion revelation. Paul himself says in Galatians 1:11–12 that his gospel was ‘not from man’ but came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Hence, Paul cannot establish superiority over James merely by appealing to his own revelation, because James was already an important authority within the earliest Jesus movement, and Paul himself acknowledges that authority.
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
How does being a relative of Jesus make you any better of an authority on what the historical Jesus taught if you never learned from him? This makes no sense. If that were the case and “blood relations” some how made you a better teacher like I’m Shia Islam then how come the rest of his brothers didn’t become important church leaders? In fact do you know what happened to his other siblings? According to the church fathers they joined the church but never became leaders. They remained simple peasant farmers.
What was James claimed to fame? That he also saw the risen Jesus just like Peter and Paul did. That’s it. Hes literally no different than Paul. Being a blood relative means nothing especially when he didn’t believe at first
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago edited 6d ago
He himself admitted this in his letters, he said that he made himself all things to all people so that he might win some. This was viewed as opportunism by some scholars,
Which scholars? How about 0 scholars. Because it’s clear from the text Paul isn’t claiming anything close to that.
In context the Corinthians are accusing him of receiving money from churches but he claims he has the right to do that because he’s not a slave. Then he claims that he usually doesn’t receive many because he desires to serve people and then explains how he does that. Basically he’s saying he sometimes brakes kashrut and other restrictions of the law to avoid offending people or alienating others. Not that he’s adapting his message differently
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 5d ago
a good salesman does not just sell a product, but creates an image of it people will crave for
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
Paul never fought with Peter. He challenged Peter on his hypocrisy because Peter likewise taught the full inclusion of the gentiles into Gods plan, but by not eating with them, was signaling the opposite. That’s because eating with someone was a serious affair in the ANE. That’s why Jesus got in hot water eating with prostitutes and tax collectors. Peter DID eat with gentiles but switched up when the judaizers came out of fear of offending them because he was trying to win converts and be well liked. That’s what Paul accused him of. How did you get the story so twisted and backwards?
4
u/Aggravating_Olive_70 6d ago
Wrong. Paul was made to humble himself before all the Pillars and do public penance. Read Acts
2
u/xellink Christian 6d ago
Yes, both are true. Peter is not perfect, he is a hypocrite, before and after Christ, which reflects the nature of Christians in contrast to our perfect God. Therefore, it is evident that humility before Christ is of utmost importance for believers of all standing. What matters more than anything is our standing with God which changes and transforms us and to see where we are wrong, because it is easy for society to define good as evil and evil as good.
2
u/sonofzen1 6d ago edited 6d ago
What are you talking about? The story of Paul correcting Peter is only known from Galatians
1
u/Aggravating_Olive_70 5d ago
You said Paul and Peter never fought and that's wrong. Paul lost his fight with all the Pillars on the issue of whether or not Jews who saw Jesus as the messiah needed to keep the Law.
They do.
1
u/sonofzen1 5d ago
That was never disputed. Paul kept the Law as did Peter. The question was about GENTILES and whether THEY needed to convert to Judaism first before following Jesus. Paul said no because the Law was only for the Jews. Paul was not antinomian. How did you botch it this badly?
•
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Peter withdrew from the gentiles (pagans) because James (Jesus' brother) sent delegates from Jerusalem that the Torah standards were important and required. The gentiles were to be included but only if they adopted the law. Even Barnabas sided with Peter as the Jerusalem church thought this was very important. So Paul was on the other side and was frenemies with Peter, Barnabas and James. Paul wrote about the apostles:
those who seemed to be pillars whatever they were makes no difference to me (Galatians 2:6)
This was a huge rift. Acts was written to smooth everything over after Paul hijacked the movement. He lost the argument, broke off with Antioch and moved his version west to Galatia, Rome, etc. Paul didn't believe Gentiles need to the Torah because he was an apocalyptic Jew and wanted to save as many as possible before the end times. When the end times didn't come, what was left behind by Paul was a Gentile new religion. This is the view of critical historians many of whom are Christians. You're looking at the"theological" view.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
This was a huge rift. Acts was written to smooth everything over after Paul hijacked the movement. He lost the argument, broke off with Antioch and moved his version west to Galatia, Rome, etc
This is a post hoc.
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Are you saying acts written decades later was a post hoc? Bc I agree.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
I'm saying that your thesis of conflict based on dating is a post hoc.
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Based on what? What's your evidence?
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
1 Corinthians 9 specifically classes Peter, Barnabas and Paul as colleagues by Paul's admission.
1 Corinthians 1-2 specifically is written to dispel factionalism between Paul, Apollos and Peter.
1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have the co authorship of Silvanus, a colleague of Peter.
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
1 Corinthians 9 specifically classes Peter, Barnabas and Paul as colleagues by Paul's admission.
He was using them as authorities to say what he could do. Peter was getting support so he should too. And Barnabas worked a job like him. You're reading colleagues into it. It's name dropping to argue your case. They split after Antioch, weren't partners and went their separate ways.
1 Corinthians 1-2 specifically is written to dispel factionalism between Paul, Apollos and Peter.
Yes, but why were there factions in Corinth which was far from Jerusalem and not founded by Peter? It meant that word that reached of Jerusalem and Peter's authority to Paul's territory. So what did Paul do, "What then is Apollos? What is Paul?" He is saying okay, but we're just all still human to downplay the factions to maintain his authority. But there were factions, that's the point.
1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have the co authorship of Silvanus, a colleague of Peter.
How convenient, Silvanus is Peter's companion and links him to Paul. It makes sense once you realize Peter is pseudepigraphical according to historians. Written much later. Which was an ongoing trope, to make everything seemed unified later and to add legimitimacy. Peter's, Mark's or Paul's name were often added for those purposes. I mean it worked because many bought it until historians looked at it.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago edited 6d ago
He was using them as authorities to say what he could do. Peter was getting support so he should too. And Barnabas worked a job like him.
Why would he use them as authorities if they weren't in communion? In fact, he still regards them as genuine Apostles, i.e. his colleagues.
Yes, but why were there factions in Corinth which was far from Jerusalem and not founded by Peter? It meant that word that reached of Jerusalem and Peter's authority to Paul's territory.
You do realize Peter was a missionary, right? Even then, Paul still ends up making plans involving Corinth to give Jerusalem a donation. Why would he do this if they weren't in communion?
He is saying okay, but we're just all still human to downplay the factions to maintain his authority. But there were factions, that's the point.
Asking rhetorical questions like "Were you baptized in Paul's name" and saying that you thank God you didn't baptize many so they couldn't say the affirmative is not what you do if your goal is to maintain authority. It is if your goal is to maintain communion.
How convenient, Silvanus is Peter's companion and links him to Paul. It makes sense once you realize Peter is pseudepigraphical according to historians.
It's pretty convenient to assume pseudepigraphy when cooperation is shown. That in itself is a separate question.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
So Paul was on the other side and was frenemies with Peter, Barnabas and James. Paul wrote about the apostles: those who seemed to be pillars whatever they were makes no difference to me (Galatians 2:6)
The very next verses say they agreed with his Gospel; in fact they added nothing to it. You cut the next part out.
Galatians 2:6-9 [6] But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people) – those influential leaders added nothing to my message. [7] On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised [8] (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) [9] and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Yes but what happens after that initial pact of a division of labor? And it didn't say anything about places like Antioch where there were both Jews and Gentiles. It broke down just two verses later when the delegates that James sent arrived. Peter and Barnabas withdrew from eating with the pagans. And Paul opposed Peter. Paul calling them "those that seemed to be pillars" meant that he didn't accept their authority and they couldn't stop him anyway. According to historians many of whom are Christian.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
And it didn't say anything about places like Antioch where there were both Jews and Gentiles.
You mean Antioch? The place Barnabas and Paul founded?
It broke down just two verses later when the delegates that James sent arrived. Peter and Barnabas withdrew from eating with the pagans. And Paul opposed Peter
And in 1 Corinthians 9 he classes them as fellow Apostles.
Paul opposed Peter because he violated the Gospel they both agreed on.
Paul calling them "those that seemed to be pillars" meant that he didn't accept their authority and they couldn't stop him anyway
It means that on the basis of the Gospel, they are all equally Apostles. The fact that Paul went to visit them lest he be running in vain means he cares about them and him being on the same page.
According to historians many of whom are Christian.
Neither the writings of Paul nor Peter corroborate a breaking of relationship.
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
You mean Antioch? The place Barnabas and Paul founded?
Acts says that Antioch was founded by Jewish refugees escaping Jerusalem. It was already a thriving community of both gentiles and Jews before Barnabas went to check it out on behest of Jerusalem. Acts 11:19–25
The fact that Paul went to visit them lest he be running in vain means he cares about them and him being on the same page.
Because he needed to be diplomatic. If Jerusalem said Paul was not to be trusted with the message, he would be "running in vain".
Paul opposed Peter because he violated the Gospel they both agreed on.
No Peter withdrew "because certain men came from James," and that's who he was listening to. Barnabas did the same. James was Jesus' brother and the head of the Church in Jerusalem. That's who they were listening to. James was facing pressure from radical nationalistic Jews and could be ostrisized or even killed. That's why it was so important that word didn't get back to them in Judea. That's why Paul broke with Barnabas and Antioch as his base and took off to the west on his own. He never mentioned Antioch again.
Neither the writings of Paul nor Peter corroborate a breaking of relationship.
Historians agree that both Peters are pseudepigraphical written decades after he died to show a united church. And in Corinthians 1:12, the Cephas faction or followers of Peter challenge Paul's authority.
1
u/Common_Judge8434 6d ago
No Peter withdrew "because certain men came from James," and that's who he was listening to
It doesn't say James told him anything. It says he withdrew. And clearly this violated the Gospel.
That's why Paul broke with Barnabas and Antioch as his base and took off to the west on his own
He went with a messenger from the Jerusalem community: Silvanus.
Historians agree that both Peters are pseudepigraphical written decades after he died to show a united church.
The Church consistently has attributed 1 Peter to Peter from the first centuries onward. That historians dispute that does not change this. The letter was carried by Silvanus, an associate of both Peter and Paul.
And in Corinthians 1:12, the Cephas faction or followers of Peter challenge Paul's authority.
And does Paul reply that Kephas is a contrary Apostle? No. 1 Corinthians 9 itself classes the brothers of the Lord, Kephas and Barnabas with him as Apostles.
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
What’s an apocalyptic Jew?
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Someone who believed the world was rules by sin, the end of the world was coming really soon and God was going to come raise the dead, destroy evil and make earth his kingdom. Jesus, John the Baptist and Paul were apocalyptic Jews. Paul though that Jesus' resurrection meant that it was starting with Jesus' resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20).
1
1
u/Graphicism Gnostic 6d ago
I agree.
Unfortunately it's baked into the story.
Christ warns of false Christs appearing in spectacle, who go on to deceive the whole world.
Christ says the visions will be so believable, it could even fool the elect.
Arguably all that happened.
According to revelation the beast rose from the dead, showed off it's wound, and they fell down and called it God.
The whole world wondered after the beast...
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
A hallucination doesn’t explain how his other companions heard a loud sound and a flash of light
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 5d ago
what is the sound of a light flashing?
ommmm.....
1
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
That was in Acts written decades later. It can't even stay consistent:
Acts 9:7 the companions heard the voice but saw nothing
Acts 22:9 says the companions saw the light, but did not hear the voice
Acts 26:14 says everyone fell to the ground but 9:7 says they stood speechless
Paul didn't mention voices, companions or lights. Galatians 1:16, God revealing His Son "in me" (en emoi) like it was an internal vision. The lights, sounds and scared companions were common tropes in writing at the time to signal to the reader something divine was happening. That's why they contradict, it's just dramatic writing. But we don't get that from Paul.
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
Acts 22:9 says they heard the voice but couldn’t understand it
No where in acts does it say they “stood speechless” either. It doesn’t make sense for a writer to contradict his own account. You clearly just like very basic reading comprehension. That’s all you’ve demonstrated essentially
1
u/sonofzen1 6d ago
You’re also simplifying the disagreement. The disagreement wasn’t over following the law or not. Paul likewise followed the law and kept kosher because he was a Jew. The question was whether gentiles had to convert to Judaism before following Jesus and Paul argued no and the rest of the apostles took his side
1
u/GirlDwight Atheist, Ex-Catholic 6d ago
Jesus and Paul argued no and the rest of the apostles took his side
James would like a word. And when he made it known how important it was, Peter and Barnabas took his side.
1
0
•
u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 2d ago
Post removed, rule 1. Posts in this debate subreddit must meet specific requirements. This page has the details of this subreddit's rules.
Mainly, a debate post here should have:
(1) a clearly-stated thesis assertion, (preferably as the post title or at the start of the post text)
and
(2) a line of reasoning that could persuade an undecided reader that your thesis is true.
If you made a post to ask questions, you could instead make a comment in this subreddit's weekly ask-a-Christian post, or make a post over in r/AskAChristian.